Model comparison
Gemini 2.5 Flash vs Gemma 4 31B IT
Gemma 4 31B IT is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.5 to 39.3 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 25 shared benchmarks.
GoogleSummary
- They share 25 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 2.5 Flash scores higher in 3 categories and Gemma 4 31B IT in 6 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Gemma 4 31B IT leads 27.2 to 18.1.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is LMCA: 27.5% for Gemini 2.5 Flash and 39.3% for Gemma 4 31B IT.
- Gemma 4 31B IT is cheaper at $0.09 / $0.34 per million input/output tokens, against $0.30 / $2.50 for Gemini 2.5 Flash.
- Gemini 2.5 Flash accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 262K.
- Gemma 4 31B IT has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Gemini 2.5 Flash | Gemma 4 31B IT | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | ||
| Noometry Index | 39.3 | 43.5 |
| Released | 2025-04-17 | 2026-04-02 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 1.05M | 262K |
| Max output | 66K | 33K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.30 | $0.09 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $2.50 | $0.34 |
| Results tracked | 54 | 35 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Gemma 4 31B IT leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 35.8 (#220), Gemma 4 31B IT: 42.3 (#108)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Gemma 4 31B IT |
|---|---|---|
| WeirdML | 41.9% | 52.3% |
| LMArena Coding | 1424 | 1459 |
| ALE-Bench | 661.88 | 925.5 |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 28.7% | — |
| Aider Polyglot | 55.1% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1366 |
| SciCode | — | 43.4% |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 30.8 (#74), Gemma 4 31B IT: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Gemma 4 31B IT |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 17.1% | — |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | 56.2% | — |
| TheAgentCompany | 41.1% | — |
| BALROG | 33.5% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 548.84 | — |
Reasoning Gemma 4 31B IT leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 18.1 (#286), Gemma 4 31B IT: 27.2 (#122)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Gemma 4 31B IT |
|---|---|---|
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 56.8% | 63.5% |
| CritPt | 1.1% | 1.4% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1422 | 1448 |
| DTBench | 76.5% | 82.7% |
| LMCA | 27.5% | 39.3% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 143.03 | 142.74 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 2.5% | — |
| SimpleBench | 41.2% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 70.6% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 33.3% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 5% |
| EnigmaEval | 2.7% | — |
| Thematic Generalization | — | 53% |
| Surface Evolver Bench | — | 30.6% |
| ForecastBench | 60.6 | — |
Math Gemma 4 31B IT leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 39.9 (#98), Gemma 4 31B IT: 43.2 (#81)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Gemma 4 31B IT |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 73.1% | 73.3% |
| LMArena Math | 1415 | 1465 |
| Omni-MATH | 38.5% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 4.8% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 4.2% | — |
Knowledge Gemma 4 31B IT leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 36.4 (#168), Gemma 4 31B IT: 37.9 (#151)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Gemma 4 31B IT |
|---|---|---|
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 7.8% | 7.4% |
| LMArena Expert | 1426 | 1465 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 75.8% |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 12.1% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 10.4% |
| MMLU-Pro | 63.9% | — |
| Confabulations | 16.8% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | 39% | — |
Multimodal Too close to call
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 41.8 (#32), Gemma 4 31B IT: 41.6 (#34)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Gemma 4 31B IT |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1253 | 1277 |
| GeoBench | 76% | — |
| VPCT | 46.2% | — |
| LMArena Document | — | 1425 |
| SpatialViz-Bench | 36.9% | — |
Multilingual Gemma 4 31B IT leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 52.3 (#88), Gemma 4 31B IT: 53.8 (#57)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Gemma 4 31B IT |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1409 | 1431 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1450 | 1476 |
| LMArena French | 1433 | 1435 |
| LMArena Russian | 1415 | 1460 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1421 | 1444 |
| LMArena German | 1418 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1405 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1385 | — |
Instruction Following Too close to call
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 75.7 (#54), Gemma 4 31B IT: 75.5 (#61)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Gemma 4 31B IT |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1405 | 1433 |
| IFEval | 89.8% | — |
Long Context Gemini 2.5 Flash leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 47.5 (#17), Gemma 4 31B IT: 44.2 (#71)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Gemma 4 31B IT |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1419 | 1446 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | 77.8% | — |
Writing & Preference Gemma 4 31B IT leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 53.8 (#157), Gemma 4 31B IT: 60.5 (#96)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Gemma 4 31B IT |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1417 | 1443 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1400 | 1415 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1137 | 1368 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1408 | 1452 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 76.5% | — |
| WildBench | 81.7% | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | — | 1120 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemini 2.5 Flash better than Gemma 4 31B IT?
Gemma 4 31B IT is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.5 to 39.3 on the Noometry Index.
Which is cheaper, Gemini 2.5 Flash or Gemma 4 31B IT?
Gemma 4 31B IT is cheaper. It lists at $0.09 per million input tokens and $0.34 per million output tokens; Gemini 2.5 Flash lists at $0.30 and $2.50.
Is Gemini 2.5 Flash or Gemma 4 31B IT better for coding?
Gemma 4 31B IT scores higher on coding benchmarks: 42.3 versus 35.8 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Gemini 2.5 Flash does, with 1.05M tokens against 262K.
How many benchmarks do Gemini 2.5 Flash and Gemma 4 31B IT share?
25 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 2.5 Flash has 54 scored results on Noometry and Gemma 4 31B IT has 35.